About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Vantage Point: How "Hard" Must "Hardship" Be? Print E-mail
Written by Wendy Lathrop, LS, CFM   
Sunday, 22 June 2008

A 480Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

Our governments, whether local, state, or federal, have a certain amount of say-so and control over our real estate. All three have the power to exercise their powers of eminent domain to condemn private property for public uses, providing that just compensation is paid to the landowner. The definition of "public use" became a national debate a few years ago after the Kelo v. New London suit in Connecticut, but there is a second means by which local jurisdictions in particular control our realty, and that is through "police power" as exercised through land use and zoning ordinances. Police powers do not take away a person's rights as condemnation does, but instead directs or restricts them. Just as in condemnation proceedings, the affected landowner has the right to appeal police actions relating to land. Recently a disgruntled landowner in Plumstead Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania exercised that right, and first won in trial court but then lost in the Township's appeals to the State Supreme Court, making land use news throughout the country.

Mr. A. Rhodes Wilson had bought property on US Route 611 (known locally as Easton Road) that was zoned R-2, a residential zone allowing home occupations, which are defined as a use "conducted within an existing dwelling which is the bona fide residence of the principal practitioner...." A house did exist on the property, and Wilson began to renovate it. After a zoning officer notified Wilson that he needed a building permit, Wilson made the application and received approval for the plans he had submitted to the Township entitled "Wilson Residence". As the renovations proceeded, the building inspector noticed that improvements throughout the structure were all typical of an office, but Wilson assured him that they were for a residence with a "home occupation".

After the renovations, however, the zoning inspector found that Wilson was not living there, and was instead using the building only as an office, an impermissible professional office use inconsistent with R-2 zoning. Wilson's response to the Enforcement Notice was to file an appeal, which the Township rejected because the building could reasonably be used as zoned. Mere desires to maximize financial gain are not the grounds for a use variance, and any hardship was self-inflicted. Wilson's appeal to the trial court succeeded, based on additional evidence identifying various commercial entities operating nearby that made the property "not conducive to residential living or raising a family" and testifying that he would not "enjoy living there because of traffic and traffic noises." The Township, of course, was not happy with this outcome, and both the Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld Plumstead's actions in denying the variance.

What is the burden on the applicant for a variance? The upper courts here defined that as a showing of unnecessary hardship resulting from denial of a variance, that the use will not be contrary to public interests, and that the requested variance would be the minimum action that would afford relief from the hardship.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a hardship is "In general, privation, suffering, adversity. As used in zoning statues as grounds for variance, it refers to fact that zoning ordinance or restriction as applied to a particular property is unduly oppressive."

When is a hardship really a hardship, warranting a variance, and when is it self-inflicted? Because land use regulation was applied uniformly throughout the R-2 zone, there was no special hardship inflicted upon Wilson by enforcement of those same ordinances on his particular property; every other landowner in the same R-2 area was subject to the same circumstances. There was no difference between his house that was eligible for home occupation and any other house on that stretch of highway eligible for the same uses. He was not being singled out, he was not being denied use of his property, and his house was suitable for the zoned uses imposed by the Township.

Wilson was aware of the zoning before he bought the property, and was aware of the busy nature of the area. As a side note, his "additional evidence" presented to the trial court included nearby tracts that he failed to disclose as being zoned for the strictly commercial uses they supported. Knowing, then, what he was getting into, were Wilson's circumstances "self-inflicted"? To be self -inflicted, the property owner would have to have created the conditions leading to the hardship. Wilson did not affect the zoning, and he did not pay more than the property was worth as a house eligible for "home occupation".

This brings up a significant point in arguing for hardship variances­or against them. About ten years ago, a developer in my area pressured a local jurisdiction to change the zoning for a certain area from commercial to residential use. Against public urging to the contrary, the community made the change. But then publicity about environmentally unsafe conditions making residential use hazardous became a very hot topic. Restraining their great desire to shout, "We told you so," the original opponents moved to oppose the variances that the zoning board was now granting to the developer to build in that same area, and failing that, pressed suit in Commonwealth Court to stop the development.

On the heels of the opponents' win, the developer immediately appealed to the next higher court, which overturned the lower court and upheld the variances granted by the zoning board. Why? Because obviously there was a hardship! If the developer did not receive the requested variances to complete its project as it planned, it would suffer great economic loss, and since the site was zoned for residential use, it could not possibly be used for anything else. What the court failed to acknowledge, and what had not been an issue in the lower court, was that the zoning change had been implemented at the developer's own request. Without that prime piece of information, the upper court would not believe that this was a self-inflicted hardship.

Author Note: For those wishing to read Wilson v. Plumstead Township Zoning Hearing Board, the citation is 926 A.2d 1061, Supreme Ct. of PA, 2007.

Wendy Lathrop is licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in NJ, PA, DE, and MD, and has been involved since 1974 in surveying projects ranging from construction to boundary to environmental land use disputes. She is a Professional Planner in NJ, and a Certified Floodplain Manager through ASFPM.

A 480Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Thought Leader: Land is Too Important to Be Left to Land Specialists
A while back I was searching the Internet for an old treatise on land titles. A Google query yielded a book published in 1914. The author was Charles Claudius Kagey and the book was titled "Land Survey and Land Titles, a book for boys and girls, a reference volume for property owners, a text ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Wacker vs. Price - Irony in Sevenfold
This month's case takes us to Phoenix, Arizona in 1950. The Arizona Supreme Court went all guns-a-blazin' in Wacker vs. Price (216 P.2d 707 (Ariz. 1950)). Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing plenty of irony and have taken license to point it out along the way. I like what the Court did with this case ....
Read the Article
Allen E. Cheves 
Around the Bend - A Visit to Carlson Software
The Ohio River is one of America's greatest, running near 1,000 miles between Pittsburgh and the Mighty Mississippi. Much of the coal and other products that fueled our nation's industrial expansion flowed between the shores of this maritime ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Surveying & Mapping Economics Part 3 - Customers & Services
This article continues an inquiry into the economic conditions of the Surveying and Mapping industry (NAICS 541370) using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This time we will look at customers and services. The data comes from the Economic Census conducted every 5 years on American ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
True Elevation: Black Elk Peak
Black Elk Peak, located in the Black Hills region of South Dakota, is the state's highest natural point. It is frequently referred to as the highest summit in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Two other peaks, Guadalupe Peak in Texas and ....
Read the Article
Larry Trojak 
Bringing The Goods - Mobile Scanning an Integral Component
When Jim Smith, Jerrad Burns and Charlie Patton left the Memphis division of a major construction company in 2015, they took with them the knowledge of how to get even the most complex jobs done and what equipment could best serve them in making that happen. So when they joined West ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Test Yourself 41: Integers, Integers, and Integers
ABF is a 5:12:13 triangle, ACF is a 48:55:73 triangle, ADF is a 3:4:5 triangle, and AEF is a 7:24:25 triangle, all with integer sides and inscribed in a semi-circle. What are the lengths of BC, CD, and DE? ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Sunset or Sunrise?
While we often think of legislated government programs as static, they do change over time. Such evolution and opportunity for transformation are part of the dialogue in reauthorizing these programs. Every so many years there is a sunset on each government program, and this September is the ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


JAVAD Intros
Spoofer Buster

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
905 W 7th St #331
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax